4 ms·
Good for her in the end, though. The National Review and NYT both wrote articles about her film. I'd not know about it had her film gotten cancelled.
by dymk 4y ago
Good for her in the end, though. The National Review and NYT both wrote articles about her film. I'd not know about it had her film gotten cancelled.
- aaronbrethorst 4y agoA great encapsulation of how 'cancel culture' means absolutely nothing. This film was 'cancelled' and that's why it was written up in two publications with national audiences.
- inglor_cz 4y agoThe fact that someone survived a botched assassination attempt does not mean that they were never in danger. Outcomes != intent. AFAIK the movie is still in red because of all the cancelled festival screenings - a major problem for the director who isn't wealthy.
- tayistay 4y agoPlease think more about this. The film is currently not being distributed. The crew was tracked down and threatened to disavow the film or not find further work. That is absolutely cancel culture. That there is subsequent news coverage (still no easy way to watch the film!) doesn’t change that.
- tayistay 4y agoI don’t think this is good for her in the end. Sure, she’s got a lot of media coverage, but what about her career as a documentary filmmaker? Surely the better outcome would be the film screened at Sundance.